PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.5 Mass Combat: That works, is fast and fair.



Silverphantasm
2017-07-10, 05:20 PM
Okay I have reviewed the Miniatures handbook for mass combat rules, and dislike a lot of it, several friends and I would like to play a D&D 3.5 (because that's what we know, have material for and enjoy) campaign where as players we can command armies of varying units and conquer certain lands and battle fields, gaining resources based on where we've captured. I know that Nations games can be similar, but from what I've read it's too different.

I'd like to develop some equations/methods to simulate various army units (of variable size, make up and capability) in combat against one another that could be done relatively quickly without sacrificing some of the fun/chance of D&D.

Things I think should be included unit type: mounted vs foot, archery vs infantry, pikes & sheild walls etc..... terrain.....rocky vs flat, sloped hills & muddy or frozen conditions. (these make charges and attacks harder, but still allows them). .....moral this is to reflect how "ready" the soldiers are, maybe they haven't eaten or slept in 2 days, maybe they have been promised each a sack of gold if they win in-spite of overwhelming odds.

Tracking health vs unit strength is difficult also.......if the whole unit gains a moral bonus, but suddenly half the unit takes aoe, how do you account for those two variables.


I'd appreciate comments and posts, suggestions and ideas. Thanks

aimlessPolymath
2017-07-10, 07:33 PM
So, digging through the forum pulls up two systems which might be useful, either directly or as inspiration.

One (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?235268-3-5e-Mechanics-Mass-Combat-(PEACH)&highlight=War+Mass+Combat)

Two (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?378446-Tactical-Mass-Combat-rules-(Not-the-Paizo-strategic-battle)&highlight=War+Mass+Combat)

I remember seeing one once which I can't find again, where as a unit takes casualties, it decreases in size.

There's some degree of support in existing mechanics, too, for what you're looking for. A well designed system takes account of this, by translating existing statistics into unit bonuses. The first one does most of this; the second does not. Neither take into account formations.

Mounted vs. foot:
Included:
-Being on horses increases your speed by default, making units more mobile.
-Archers find it more difficult to fire on horseback, although hypothetical training could alleviate this.
Not included:
-One of the most useful aspects of being mounted is the momentum you gain when charging, letting you "bowl over" enemy lines and break formations. D&D does not take account of this.

Archery vs. infantry: Ranged attacks provide a first strike capability. However, in melee range, the "firing into melee" penalty gives infantry an advantage.

Pikes + Shield walls: Longspears give reach, allowing you to have a front line which uses shields and shortspears to absorb blows, and a second line which uses longspears, effectively increasing the number of attacks per exposed square. However, while small-unit rules cover these tactics, neither system allows for any sort of formations.

Terrain: Did you know that you can't charge through difficult terrain? It's true! Even one square means that you need to resort to taking a normal move. However, as before in mounted combat, the momentum aspect of it isn't covered.

High ground is well-defined in the rules, giving +1 to melee attack rolls. Movement uphill costs double.

Morale is covered by the second of the two systems, but not the first.
Personally, I might expect morale to be checked when a unit is charged and when it takes significant damage.

One thing that neither system covers well, and that I'm still looking for, is a good way to handle formations- the equivalent of the shield wall I described before, but also it breaking down the confusion of battle (morale breaking). Ideally, I'd like to see some measurement of how much of a unit is actually able to attack a different unit at one time (see- the shield wall, which among its benefits includes doubling the number of attacks your unit can make).

Silverphantasm
2017-07-11, 08:31 AM
So, digging through the forum pulls up two systems which might be useful, either directly or as inspiration.

One (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?235268-3-5e-Mechanics-Mass-Combat-(PEACH)&highlight=War+Mass+Combat)

Two (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?378446-Tactical-Mass-Combat-rules-(Not-the-Paizo-strategic-battle)&highlight=War+Mass+Combat)

I remember seeing one once which I can't find again, where as a unit takes casualties, it decreases in size.

There's some degree of support in existing mechanics, too, for what you're looking for. A well designed system takes account of this, by translating existing statistics into unit bonuses. The first one does most of this; the second does not. Neither take into account formations.

Mounted vs. foot:
Included:
-Being on horses increases your speed by default, making units more mobile.
-Archers find it more difficult to fire on horseback, although hypothetical training could alleviate this.
Not included:
-One of the most useful aspects of being mounted is the momentum you gain when charging, letting you "bowl over" enemy lines and break formations. D&D does not take account of this.

Archery vs. infantry: Ranged attacks provide a first strike capability. However, in melee range, the "firing into melee" penalty gives infantry an advantage.

Pikes + Shield walls: Longspears give reach, allowing you to have a front line which uses shields and shortspears to absorb blows, and a second line which uses longspears, effectively increasing the number of attacks per exposed square. However, while small-unit rules cover these tactics, neither system allows for any sort of formations.

Terrain: Did you know that you can't charge through difficult terrain? It's true! Even one square means that you need to resort to taking a normal move. However, as before in mounted combat, the momentum aspect of it isn't covered.

High ground is well-defined in the rules, giving +1 to melee attack rolls. Movement uphill costs double.

Morale is covered by the second of the two systems, but not the first.
Personally, I might expect morale to be checked when a unit is charged and when it takes significant damage.

One thing that neither system covers well, and that I'm still looking for, is a good way to handle formations- the equivalent of the shield wall I described before, but also it breaking down the confusion of battle (morale breaking). Ideally, I'd like to see some measurement of how much of a unit is actually able to attack a different unit at one time (see- the shield wall, which among its benefits includes doubling the number of attacks your unit can make).

Thanks for your input so far, due to time constraints I have yet to thoroughly review the links, but I have a questions at the moment, Yes I do appreciate the above notes about existing combat terrain/situational modifiers, but wasn't going to automatically restrict the "development" of possible mass combat rules to the existing, though I do warrant that changing some while leaving others could make problems. Like you I'm interested in being able to represent levels of damage and capability throughout a unit and bonuses certain formations or conglomerates of units would have.

Anyway's my biggest questions about terrain is that again based on D&D (at least my interpretation based on written material) is that difficult terrain stopping charging can be easily overcome with various balance checks (my interpretation is based on Balance PHB.p67) From my interpretation, and assumption that army unit can be anywhere from 1st level up (including or not including PC classes to spice it up) A 3 HD creature can have avg ranks in balance with 14 dex and have around a 70 % chance of successfully charging up or across sloped light obstructed surface. I merit that some could fail, but that a good number can succeed, and with only basic investment. (Am I totally misinterpreting or is this possible?)

Not trying to argue to be an munchkin, just working on some interpretations some friends and I use.

aimlessPolymath
2017-07-11, 03:28 PM
On terrain modifiers: My main motivation for wanting to clone those modifiers is twofold. First, if the modifiers seem too small in large-unit tactics, they're probably too small in small units as well. Second, this allows for more unusual effects (spell effects, mostly) to be scaled up as needed.


On Balance: Yeah, assuming it's a class skill, and no armor check penalty, that works. On the other hand, a 70% chance to ignore means that whatever army unit charging through rough terrain will rapidly break formation, and possibly trample its own soldiers if they can't keep up.

Vogie
2017-07-12, 03:59 PM
One way to achieve the feel of Mass combat is by breaking it down into a combination of skill challenges and mini-encounters.

While Skill challenges are a 4e thing, you can use the basic mechanics fairly easily. Each "combat unit" can have a series of stats that can be used for the challenge, where successes replace attacks, and instead of HP, they have a series of failures - everything else is roleplayed through.

The Mini-encounters are similar to those "cinematic" moments where two named characters meet amidst the battle, have their own little duel, and then the combat keeps flowing around them.